Remember too that in PA, the establishment machine politics matters a LOT more than in other states and could potentially trump ideological or consistency or even policy concerns in the name of loyalty....could

Though i vote that way knowing far less about the new york race than the penn. however i am torn when it comes to sestak, i like him more than specter, however i don't want good money being wasted in Penn. Specter can easily pay his own way but i am not sure sestak can pay for both the general and the primary. I know he has shown the capacity to raise a good amount of money but i see the figure eclipsing 10 mil for both the general and primary. Also, any chance that toomey can gain traction from a bloody primary scares me. Santorum was bad enough but the club for growth captain in the senate don't we have enough hardline right wingers. The guy would filibuster everything.

One difference too is that Sestak actually has like policy issues to campaign on. He also has a lot of name recognition, for better in some ways and worse in others, which affects polling. In New York it's basically two unknowns as far as polling goes, so it's especially hard to do too much with polls this far out.

Obviously my big complaint, as well as some of the PA establishment, is that Specter is 100 percent unreliable past reelection day. He could end up being more conservative than he was as a Republican, even, if it gave him more power within a sixty-ish Democratic caucus. but that's another issue alltogether I suppoooose

Your points are very apt. The reliability of specter is definitely a concern as this would seem to be his last term so he would not be accountable to the voters in any tangible way. I just weigh that against the possibility of toomey being a senator the former scares me less than the latter. Could you imagine toomey with six years of a platform for his unfeasible economic policies. The American public can be a very irrational bunch when scared and i could easily see a scenario where toomeys hairbrained economic policies gain traction. The destruction of our economic stability would be epic.

In regards to the new york senate race i am not so concerned about losing the seat as i am worried about electing the right person. In my opinion a rising star like Gilliabrand(sp) would be a terrible loss especially since i have yet to find something except gun control were i prefer Maloney to her. But, i as i said i really don't have a grasp on that race. My girlfriends father is from Pitt and he gave a pretty detailed breakdown of the upcoming specter sestak and winner toomey races from which i have formulated the opinions stated here. Thus, i feel like i can legitimately debate that race unlike the NY one.

Good question. I'd probably go with Maloney simply because she is well known in New York City compared to Kirsten Gillibrand who's not that well known in the city but is better known in Upstate New York. Maloney represents the 14th District, East Side Manhattan and Astoria in Queens, which I believe is where Wall Street is located and it's a pretty affluent district so I'm sure she would be able to raise bundles of money on her own. I personally like Maloney better than Gillibrand, although I admire Gillibrand for coming out in support of gay marriage. The challenge for Gillibrand is that she has been labeled as a more "conservative" Democrat (mind you, conservative by New York standards is probably ten times more liberal than a liberal Democrat from Alabama) all because of her support for gun rights. On all other issues, she was already fairly liberal but now she's becoming more liberal since she represents the entire state and not just the 20th District in the Upper Hudson Valley. Maloney could use this to her advantage; she could portray Gillibrand as a calculating politician whose views changed from when she in the House to now that she's in the Senate, whereas Maloney could portray herself as always having a liberal voting record, but the establishment seems to be behind Gillibrand, so I'm sure she will pull it out in a squeaker, although I wish Maloney would get it.

As for Pennsylvania, I personally hope Joe Sestak gets it. As a Democrat, I was delighted when Arlen made the switch to join our party, and after Al Franken was finally seated, we have 60 seats, but his switch upset the pragmatist in me because I, like many others, think/know he only switched because he looked at the polls and saw where he would be defeated by the more conservative Pat Toomey - meaning, he only switched for personal/electoral reasons, and because of this, I question his sincerity and dedication to the Democratic Party. The libertarian in me respects Arlen for being pro-choice and supporting gay rights but I question some of his positions on fiscal/economic issues. Arlen, like Gillibrand, seems to have the establishment behind him as well, but I'd prefer Sestak.

To answer the question at hand, right now, I'd go with Maloney. Her base in New York City is far too powerful to overcome the appointed Gillibrand's in Upstate New York. At the same time, I question how Pennsylvania Democrats feel about having Arlen Specter as their U.S. Senator if they elect him in 2010, because who knows when he'll go back to the Republican Party? And whatever happened to Allyson Schwartz? Word was going around that she might run for the Senate as well. Did she change her mind, or has she not yet declared?

1) It was the GOP's lack of fiscal constraint that helped bring the downfall of Republican control of Congress. The GOP needs to get away from backwoods populism for a while and recover our bonofides as the party of Fiscal Sanity

2) Specter decided to switch on his own based on what was best for his electoral chances. Cowtowing to the electoral best interest of incumbents is never a good idea and usually goes hand in hand with out of control pork barrel spending as a way to bribe voters, tying in with number one and thus another reason why the GOP lost Congress in 2006. The fact that he switched exemplifies the mentallity among the GOP since about 1999 and the rise of Tom Delay of Electoral best interests trumping all other concerns. Not a good mentality for a struggling party to have seeing as how we are currently out of power, there is no gain from this strategy as it works only when a party is in power. Lastly the 40 vote thing is not that important in the grand scheme of things and in a way its better cause now the GOP can't be connected with Obama's policies this way making it easier to differentiate our positions.

Logged

He's BACK!!! His Time Has Come Once Again! Now We're All Gonna Die! No One is Safe From His Wrath!